DammitIForgotMyLogin:I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.

Theaetetus:Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.

That isn't what Lucy v. Zehmer says. That case is in law school text to illustrate the fact that the intent to contract is based upon an objective test. That is, if a reasonable person observing your behavior would assume that you intended to enter into a contract, then you will be held to have the requisite intent even if you subjectively did not intend to enter a contract.

In simpler terms, Lucy v. Zehmer means you can't sign a contract while appearing to be serious, then later get out of it by saying 'Heh, I was only joking,' even if you really were only joking. It's your outward conduct that matters, not your internal thoughts.

Lucy v. Zehmer would have little application here, because this isn't a case about whether the person had a subjective or objective intent to contract. It would be about whether or not he had the capacity to contract at the time of the agreement. Given the facts described, that case will turn largely on whether or not voluntary intoxication is a valid defense in civil cases in this jurisdiction. Lets look at that, shall we?

The Restatement (2d) of Contracts § 16. Intoxicated PersonsA person incurs only voidable contractual duties by entering into a transaction if the other party has reason to know that by reason of intoxication

(a) he is unable to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and consequences of the transaction, or(b) he is unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction.

If what this person alleges is true, and it took place in a jurisdiction that follows the Restatement rule, he would not be liable.

So yes, there's at least one person in this thread that needs to take a remedial contracts class. But I don't think it's the person you were talking to.

Theaetetus:Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: if the other party has reason to know

Uh huh, Talondel very clearly said that.

Yep, and so did I. Talondel and I are in agreement on the law, and merely disagree on whether my calling your statement "incorrect and naive" was right or not. Maybe he's kinder to idiots giving bad legal advice than I am.

No, it's how the issue of consent seems to vary wildly without a real logical explanation.

The issue of sex comes up because A LOT of people have found themselves facing charges or damaging accusations that they had sex with someone who was drunk. Ostensibly, the rational behind the accusation or charges is that a person who is intoxicated cannot give consent to have sex, thus making the encounter rape, sexual assault, etc.

How then can we square that concept with one where a person is very drunk, supposedly consents to buy expensive things, and is told that intoxication is his problem? It's not that way with a drunk person having sex. In sexual situation, the (more?) sober person is held responsible for not "taking advantage" of the less sober person.

Apparently in sexual situations, and only sexual situations, the person who is drunk cannot give consent and anything done to/with them is a crime. In all other situations, you're responsible for what happens to you while drunk and everyone else apparently bears no burden or liabilities for soliciting expensive purchases from you, etc.

LaraAmber:Okay, leaving aside the idiot with the charge card for a second.

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)

Let's see... If a girl goes into a bar, is overserved to the point she blacks out, and wakes up to discover she was gangbanged by the patrons, she has a strong criminal case. But a guy goes to a bar, is overserved to the point he blacks out, and wakes up to discover he's been financially gangbanged by the bar - and he's expected to just live with the shame and damage.

There's no guarantee that the transactions he was making, whilst absolutely paralytic, were done in good faith. They could bring him beers, ask for his credit card, he thinks "pfft, $10-$20 tops", but he gets back in the morning he sees that it was $500 a drink, and they ran it through twice, or maybe even 3 times for the one drink, whilst no where in the bar does it say beers are $500.

If a dance is $300 there's no way he had nearly 100 of them. He was just ripped off because they saw he was drunk so could take advantage and ramp up the prices.

Theaetetus:Yep, and so did I. Talondel and I are in agreement on the law, and merely disagree on whether my calling your statement "incorrect and naive" was right or not. Maybe he's kinder to idiots giving bad legal advice than I am.

His statement of the law was overly broad, but only because he didn't state an exception to the law that didn't apply in this case. He had the general rule correct, and the exception to the general rule didn't apply. The case you cited to prove him wrong doesn't directly state any rules relating to voluntary intoxication. There was no reason to state any of those rules because the court found that factually he wasn't actually intoxicated. (although the court did cite to a case that states rules that are similar to the restatement rules.

So his statement of the law was incorrect, but your attempt to rebut him was just as bad. BPIPAS at least got the result correct, which is that in this case, given the facts alleged, the guy has a argument that the agreement should be voidable at his option due to his intoxication.

I'm sitting here trying to figure out how he could have racked up a bill this high, and I think I might have figured it out. Drinks and normal dances won't cut it, but some of the higher end strip clubs have ridiculously expensive VIP rooms. I have seems some that are $1000/30min. You get 2 girls and a bottle of wine or something. That would bring the price up to $12000 for 6 hours for yourself. But if you were drunk and offered to pay for a friend to join you, that would bring the total up to $24k. It also wouldn't surprise me if that "friend" was a stripper who was "off work that night" and was "just hanging out there."

Pro tip: When you go to a strip club only bring as much money in cash as you are willing to spend. Leave the ATM and credit cards at home or in the car. When you run out of cash, go home. Works well in casinos too.

On another note, he has a credit card which will accept $28k in charges in a single night, yet still visits shiatty strip clubs. Shouldn't he be able to afford a more reputable escort service? $10,000 should be able to buy a lot of escorting without the fraud. Last I checked, those high end escort services weren't scamming their high end clientele.

Superjew:DammitIForgotMyLogin: So what they're saying is that despite having consumed sufficient alcohol to severely impair his judgement, he's still legally considered responsible for his own actions.

I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.

I would love to see a woman try out this line of defense. It would be very illuminating. Anybody care to speculate on how that might play out?

Tricky to say. Do we have any examples of a woman who's been drinking who consents to something, later regrets it, finds someone else to blame, and gets them into legal trouble?

What's interesting is that a person who's drunk/drugged can claim they were sexually assaulted because they were too intoxicated, yet they can't claim there robbed or defrauded because they were too intoxicated?

I always wonder how this would work with an age of consent nexus: If an 18 year old (in California for example) is very drunk and a 17 year old has sex with them, who's guilty of a crime? The 17 year old for having sex with someone unable to consent, or the 18 year old for having sex with a minor because being drunk is not an an excuse?

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)